WBC connection problems

Rik · May 29, 2009, 01:09:56

With many people switching to WBC in the next few days, we feel it would be helpful to concentrate all posts on WBC-specific issues into a single thread initially, so that we can concentrate the learning curve and, at the same time, give IDNet a single target to focus on.

If you do have any problems, please post them here, and we'll do our best to help.

We'd like to stay on topic as much as possible, so may move posts if necessary.

Thanks.

rireed3 · May 29, 2009, 16:53:19

Hi Rik,

Info only - the IDnet-sourced Netgear is still fine.

Original problem was 585v6, connecting at ADSL2+, but failing complete authentication to IDnet, similar to several other router brands.

Today I turned this up on the Kitz forum (Re: ADSL24 now offering LLU on: May 13, 2009)

Quote
Evening,

We have been advised, via 3 different sources, that there is a known BT 21CN WBC platform issue that is locking lines by mistake to a 2Mbps profile. This appears to only happen where the exchange MSAN equipment being used is Huawei based.

BT have a national trouble ticket open at the moment to resolve this problem, which is causing problems for thousands of lines, not just those at Entanet.

Martin Pitt
Company Founder

Aquiss Internet

I realised that while this didn't happen last Friday with the authentication problem then, I got both problems while I was trying a couple of firmwares on Tuesday. Just lucky my profile bounced back in the evening.

So, on ST585v6, two Huawei MSAN (only some exchanges) compatibility problems

Incomplete authentication prevents Internet access - always but once, when exchange cut me to 10M ADSL2, all known firmwares
connection speed and profile stuck at 2M, even though training was the long ADSL2+ style - only happened the second time I powered on the ST585v6, after running the Netgear for two half-days at 19M, and stayed for firmwares 6.2.29.2 and 6.1.9.6

Good Luck,
Richard

rireed3 · May 30, 2009, 08:00:00

Another problem with WBC, not router-related, but maybe HuaWei MSAN-related ......

After staying connected at 19M with the Netgear v5 for nearly 2 days, I noticed I was being throttled. Here are some speed tests from DSLZoneUK:

29 May 2009, 17:46    IDNet    19787    6335    32    212.69.xxx.xxx    1022669
29 May 2009, 17:45    IDNet    19787    6364    32    212.69.xxx.xxx    1022668
29 May 2009, 17:29    IDNet    19787    6339    32    212.69.xxx.xxx    1022665
29 May 2009, 14:55    IDNet    19787    6388    32    212.69.xxx.xxx    1022620
29 May 2009, 01:25    IDNet    19787    12797    65    212.69.xxx.xxx    1022492
28 May 2009, 16:36    IDNet    19787    13495    68    212.69.xxx.xxx    1022297
28 May 2009, 14:52    IDNet    19787    15230    77    212.69.xxx.xxx    1022270
28 May 2009, 12:11    IDNet    19767    14312    72    212.69.xxx.xxx    1022239
28 May 2009, 11:24    IDNet    19767    11617    59    212.69.xxx.xxx    1022231
27 May 2009, 16:26    IDNet    19363    15202    79    212.69.xxx.xxx    1021951
27 May 2009, 09:24    IDNet    19231    14033    73    212.69.xxx.xxx    1021820
27 May 2009, 08:36    IDNet    19231    12027    63    212.69.xxx.xxx    1021800
26 May 2009, 18:54    IDNet    19231    14840    77    212.69.xxx.xxx    1021618

These are three connections. The 19767's were typos when I did the DSLZoneUK custom test and are part of the 19787 connection.

Richard

Edit: IP address removed

rireed3 · Jun 02, 2009, 01:40:20

I'm tentatively moving my case (Speedtouch 585v6 on Huawei MSAN) to success.

First, the DLM profile cut above (not related to Speedtouch) is back to 17000.

For 585v6, though Thinkbroadband, I found someone at Andrews and Arnold who pm'd me that he had successfully connected and authenticated ST585v6 through a Huawei MSAN.

Since I had already tried this, I went through 4 cycles of the dodgy Thomson upgrade wizard, which never gave a clean result. I just stopped when I got all the way to the end before the error popup. The firmware, which I had tried before is 8.2.2.5. Maybe something also changed at the exchange. Good result one time (see the successes topic), so I'm reserving judgement, but I think it works.

Richard

Rik · Jun 02, 2009, 08:50:20

Thanks for letting us know, Richard.

Sebby · Jun 02, 2009, 20:17:52

It does sound like perhaps the exchange firmware has changed. Thanks for the info.

D-Dan · Jun 17, 2009, 19:19:15

After the problems with BT pretty much screwing everyone over, us and IDnet, I understand that problems are solved, and certainly a speedtest suggests that last night's problems are history.

However, in trying to cure yesterday's problems (I didn't know about the global problem since my net was too slow to even enter the forums initially) I've managed to get my target SNR raised to 9 (didn't take much either - 4 restarts in 12 hours). Since, technically, we are still in a training period, will this recover? I had a rock solid connection at 6 (and lower) before the WBC fiasco. Now I'd quite like to get my 512 Kbs improvement in downstream that WBC initially gave me (and which has now vanished, leaving me slightly worse off than where I started, since upstream has actually reduced slightly).

Or do I need to contact support further?

Steve

D-Dan · Jun 17, 2009, 19:21:51

Oh - or should I try a router reboot now - is it possible that targets will have reset as part of the switch?

Steve

Rik · Jun 17, 2009, 19:23:40

Support are unlikely to be able to do anything during the training period, Steve. BT will argue that the 9db is needed for stability. Having watched a Max training process recently, this time knowing what was happening, I could see why I needed the 9db, it cut my error count from 1M/day to 15k/day. Have a look at the error count in your router if you can, it will give a good clue.

Rik · Jun 17, 2009, 19:24:13

Quote from: D-Dan on Jun 17, 2009, 19:21:51
Oh - or should I try a router reboot now - is it possible that targets will have reset as part of the switch?

Almost certainly not. Leave it till the morning if you want to reboot.

D-Dan · Jun 17, 2009, 19:32:16

Thanks - I'll leave it as it is now. Maybe in the morning I'll try - and maybe I'll try the Speedtouch 585v6 instead of the DG834Gv3 at the same time, since tentative reports are that it works - see which gives me the best sync and take it from there.

For now, I'm just happy to have internet back. Isn't it funny how all your hopes and expectations desert you when you finally get back to just where you were?

Steve

Sebby · Jun 17, 2009, 19:37:26

It's like a lot of things, Steve. I often think the build up is more exciting!

Rik · Jun 17, 2009, 19:43:19

There speaks someone who's not yet married.

Sebby · Jun 17, 2009, 19:44:03

rireed3 · Jun 19, 2009, 12:38:39

Quoteand maybe I'll try the Speedtouch 585v6

D-Dan --

Sorry I missed your post, since it was I who got 585v6 to work.

Be careful of a few things, and unplug the router from the phone line until you are ready to connect. As I told support:

- Firmware version 8.2.2.5 should be used. Get it from modem-help.co.uk, as Thomson has stopped giving out their firmwares to punters!. This is also the version number currently shipping with TG585v7. Version 6.x.x.x firmwares won't work on Huawei MSAN's on WBC. 8.2.2.5 has the tone map back and this has been programmed into a tool called OrbMT, but nothing really useful like target margin tweaking has appeared.
- As always, change the PC _not_ to use DHCP, but fix it to an unused local IP, preferably 192.168.1.64. I don't know if you have to edit the DCHP pool in the router if it includes this, but I did and it was a slight connectivity nuisance to do so. I'd try just changing the PC.
- The Thomson upgrade wizard saves and restores the current configuration, but in this upgrade the configuration restore part fails at the very last. I haven't found any problems this might cause. There is another upgrader called DeviceFinder that doesn't restore the configuration and announces a successful upgrade, but this causes some extra work.
- 8.2.2.5 has a bug in its browser interface. Should the PPP connection to IDNet be lost or closed, the connect button will not work. The logging seems to show that it is disconnecting again after connection. To avoid restarting the DSL connection and involving DLM, use the telnet interface. Go to the 'ppp' command group and type 'ifattach intf = Internet'. In case 'Internet' is not the name of your PPP interface, type 'iflist' and find out what it is. When retarting the router, my authentication to IDNet has so far worked automatically.
- The Command-Line Interface has changed in 8.2.2.5, so get the .pdf manual for the TG585v7 CLI. Also, error seconds reported seem to be the 'severe' variety (>= 18 CRCs in a second), as mine are always 0, even though I get about 50 'CV's' (code violations) per hour. To see these, type 'xdsl info expand = enabled'. You can google up the G.997.1 pdf for all the definitions.

Richard

D-Dan · Jun 19, 2009, 21:32:00

Guess I'm not on a Huawei MSAN. Working better than a NG Dg 834 V3 here with 6.2.29.2 firmware. I'm loathe to upgrade the firmware during the training period. I may tryu in a couple of weeks.

Steve

sebt · Jun 25, 2009, 03:51:10

Currently Vigor 2820 and Vigor 2800 models are *not* connecting to IDnet through Infineon (IFTN/Huawei) MSAN hardware, using any of the UK firmwares. I did not try any of the non-UK firmware's listed on the international site. I am currently supporting SEG (Draytek UK) in an effort to get a new firmware released and the problem resolved, by using PPPoE passthrough and making packet traces with wireshark.

Interestingly though, the Draytek *will* connect to bt_test_user@idnet.net, which suggests the authentication issue may be at IDnet's end. IDnet still feel that's not the case, but there are some inconsistencies with the evidence I've been gathering. Eg, in Plus-net's WBC trial, people seem to be connecting successfully with the Vigor 2820. Indeed, I have a friend connecting through the same exchange as me on the Plus-net trial, connecting successfully with a 2820 using the same firmware as I have.

Although I don't want to say anyone's wrong - and I'd be the first to point out that there's a lot of educated guessing going on here - I think it might be useful for IDnet to re-examine what's going on on their own authentication servers. From my end, I can see from packet logs that during PPP authentication a certain LCP response packet is sent back to the Vigor, when connecting to bt_test_user. This tells the Vigor all is well, which then keeps the connection up. In the case of a genuine logon to IDnet however, this packet is not apparent, so the Vigor drops the call, assuming all is not well. It's possible that Netgear models are just ignoring this packet (ie. being less fussy) and keeping the connection up anyway.

If I'm in any way right in the above guesswork, a Draytek firmware update could fix the issue, but only by being less strict - so in that event it would be a case of Draytek working around someone else's issue.

Anyway, time will tell, and the sooner the better... one reason for this is that I'm seeing significantly better sync speeds from the Vigor than the DG834, up to 2M higher on occasion.

Seb

rireed3 · Jun 25, 2009, 07:42:29

Hi Seb,

One thing you should check is whether the Vigor will sync 'as it comes up' rather than from the user interface.

It's a long shot, but on my Speedtouch, the latest firmware has a bug in its browser-based user interface where the 'router logon to provider' button does not work, but seems to cause a logoff as soon as a logon. The router has reliably logged on as part of the re-sync sequence on its own, and I can also use the command-line interface to get it to log on without re-syncing.

I know it's unlikely that the Vigor has the same problem, but it's worth checking.

This fooled me for a while, because I was configuring the router and being cautious about not allowing connection until everything was ready, so as not to have the unwanted attention of DLM!

Richard

Sebby · Jun 25, 2009, 13:08:58

Interesting stuff, Seb. It might be worth letting IDNet know if it's possible that the issue is authentication at their end.

Simon_idnet · Jun 25, 2009, 16:03:26

Hi All

We only have the one authentication system that handles logon requests for 20CN as well as 21CN. That all makes of router authenticate reliably on 20CN and most makes do so on 21CN makes us skeptical that there is an authentication problem at our end.

What we see from our end is the auth request coming in from a Draytek router and our ack going back but .... either the ack is not received by the Draytek or it has already prematurely timed-out.

As Plusnet is now owned by BT we suspect that they're not using the same connection circuits that we have to use. We have forwarded sebt's findings to BT and await their response.

Cheers
Simon

Simon · Jun 25, 2009, 16:10:31

Thanks, Simon.

Sebby · Jun 25, 2009, 16:12:25

Thanks for that, Simon.

Lance · Jun 25, 2009, 21:37:55

Thanks for that, Simon. It certainly helps the knowledge building!

joll200x · Jun 25, 2009, 22:22:10

Not sure if this will fit here but i've noticed some problems trying to authenticate to IDNet using a netgear DG834GT in bridge mode and it's been failing. I suspected the netgear at first but got exactly the same thing when trying with a Zyxel in bridge mode too. Packet captures my side show going through LCP negotiation, receiving the CHAP challenege and then sending the response 10 times, each at 2 second intervals until it terminates the sessions after receiving no response from the [IDNet?] server.

I'll pass the pcaps on to support if its any use to someone?

Stu

Lance · Jun 25, 2009, 22:36:14

I think passing that on to support would be the best thing to do, thanks.

Sebby · Jun 25, 2009, 23:22:34

Quote from: joll200x on Jun 25, 2009, 22:22:10
Not sure if this will fit here but i've noticed some problems trying to authenticate to IDNet using a netgear DG834GT in bridge mode and it's been failing. I suspected the netgear at first but got exactly the same thing when trying with a Zyxel in bridge mode too. Packet captures my side show going through LCP negotiation, receiving the CHAP challenege and then sending the response 10 times, each at 2 second intervals until it terminates the sessions after receiving no response from the [IDNet?] server.

I'll pass the pcaps on to support if its any use to someone?

Stu

That's strange, because the DG834GT uses the same chipset as the DG834Gv4, which is one of the recommended routers for ADSL2+.

sebt · Jun 26, 2009, 02:54:03

Quote from: joll200x on Jun 25, 2009, 22:22:10
Not sure if this will fit here but i've noticed some problems trying to authenticate to IDNet using a netgear DG834GT in bridge mode and it's been failing. I suspected the netgear at first but got exactly the same thing when trying with a Zyxel in bridge mode too. Packet captures my side show going through LCP negotiation, receiving the CHAP challenege and then sending the response 10 times, each at 2 second intervals until it terminates the sessions after receiving no response from the [IDNet?] server.

I'll pass the pcaps on to support if its any use to someone?

Stu

Yes, stu, that's exactly, and I mean EXACTLY, what I'm seeing when I use wireshark and capture a connection packet exchange initiated by an XP PPPoE dial (ie. bridge mode / PPPoE passthrough), when attempting connecting to IDnet through the Draytek. It's as though "our end" is waiting for a packet that "their end" is never sending. And although I can't monitor it, I'm sure the Draytek's own PPPoA dial is having the same issue; it waits and waits for the "correct" response, then just drops the connection.

In fact, yours a really useful piece of input, since when the router is in bridge mode XP is handling the connection authentication, not the Netgear/Draytek. This suggests that XP may also be enforcing a more "correct" interpretation of the packet exchange, resulting in the dropped call.

Coincidentally, Seg (Draytek UK) asked me to do exactly what you've already done (PPPoE over netgear in bridge mode). I didn't get round to attempting it here yet due to my network being live, but since you have I was wondering if you could email your pcaps over to my contact there? If you could pm me I'll give you his email address. This would be really useful for nailing where the problem lies and possibly for allowing Draytek to implement a workaround as well.

Quote from: Simon_idnet on Jun 25, 2009, 16:03:26
...
As Plusnet is now owned by BT we suspect that they're not using the same connection circuits that we have to use. We have forwarded sebt's findings to BT and await their response.

Cheers
Simon

Thanks Simon! Glad to know things are happening. Most of my discussions have been with Brian, and I've been forwarding my own packet traces to my support contact at Seg, so hopefully attacking all the angles will expedite an answer soon.

Kind regards,
Seb

joll200x · Jun 26, 2009, 20:09:30

packet captures have been sanitised and sent on to the email you sent me.

I've also run them by IDnet support and was a little miffed with the response I got. Was given the impression PPPoE was supported but the settings wouldn't be given out. There aren't any settings which are that different in terms of PPPoE/PPPoA - it's just the encapsulation which is different. Does anyone have PPPoE working with IDnet on other hardware?

oglesbyj · Jun 26, 2009, 21:04:50

Just got Draytek 2820 working. Used this firmware http://www.draytek.com/user/SupportDownloadsDetail.php?action=Load&MID=12&ID=247#PdInfo then pick 232201 also says 'recomended for uk'

(in case the link does not work go to www.draytek.com not .co.uk then support -> downloads then 'Vigor2820 series 3.3.1.2' then important choose "Vigor2820 V3.3.1.2 AnnexA 232201.zip" note NOT the 211801 one I had before - this appears to have nothing to do with the version of the firmware both are 3.3.1.2.

Another thing - I did not press the reboot button once it's finished in case it stops again. Once I've sent my emails I'll have a try !

So unless idnet changed something at exactly the same time then this is the resolution to the issue. Few - now I can have 19Mbps DL with fast upload and VPN working ! This router is really great just make sure you use this firmware with it for idnet.

Happy so off to the pub.

Jon

p.s. this has been available from about 19th May so perhaps someone can tell idnet support ? I called but was told no firmware exists to fix the issue - though I have to say strange that the draytek.co.uk site appears to link to a non uk firmware as it's pointing to the 211801 rather than the working 232201 ! You have to use the .com site not the .co.uk site.

p.p.s this is my first post on idnetters!

Sebby · Jun 26, 2009, 21:31:03

Thanks for the info about the Draytek. Do you know the manufacturer of your MSAN at the exchange? The Draytek stats should reveal that.

oglesbyj · Jun 26, 2009, 21:36:56

Not sure where to see that. Will have a hunt through the menus and if I find it I'll let you know.

Update - after a reboot it stopped working again - so I just updated the firmware again with the same one I mention above but again did not reboot. Not ideal but far better than getting my line put back to adsl1 or buying something else that lacks vpn in.

Jon

Simon · Jun 26, 2009, 21:39:26

Jon, and thanks for the input.

oglesbyj · Jun 26, 2009, 21:41:39

> adsl status
--------------------------- ATU-R Info (hw: annex A, f/w: annex A) -----------
Running Mode : ADSL2+(G.992.5) State : SHOWTIME
DS Actual Rate : 19716000 bps US Actual Rate : 888000 bps
DS Attainable Rate : 20360000 bps US Attainable Rate : 888000 bps
DS Path Mode : Interleave US Path Mode : Interleave
DS Interleave Depth : 96 US Interleave Depth : 8
NE Current Attenuation : 22 dB Cur SNR Margin : 6 dB
DS actual PSD : 19. 5 dB US actual PSD : 12. 4 dB
ADSL Firmware Version : 232201_A
-------------------------------- ATU-C Info ---------------------------------
Far Current Attenuation : 8 dB Far SNR Margin : 15 dB
CO ITU Version[0] : 00004946 CO ITU Version[1] : 0000544e
DSLAM CHIPSET VENDOR : < IFTN >
>

That's it on the last line right ?

Jon

Lance · Jun 26, 2009, 22:32:59

That certainly is Jon! Welcome to the forum!!!

Elsewhere on the forum in a few places is the table which tells you whicb company that code relates to but from my phone it's not easy to find!

Sebby · Jun 27, 2009, 00:37:24

That's an Infineon MSAN, which is the one that is having trouble with a fair few routers, so it's more of an achievement that the Draytek could connect to it!

sebt · Jun 27, 2009, 13:14:24

Quote from: joll200x on Jun 26, 2009, 20:09:30
packet captures have been sanitised and sent on to the email you sent me.

I've also run them by IDnet support and was a little miffed with the response I got. Was given the impression PPPoE was supported but the settings wouldn't be given out. There aren't any settings which are that different in terms of PPPoE/PPPoA - it's just the encapsulation which is different. Does anyone have PPPoE working with IDnet on other hardware?

Thanks for sending the packets over Stu. I've had PPPoE working from the Netgear, but only when the Netgear is initiating the dial/authenticating. PPPoE initiated from XP over either the Netgear or Draytek fails with identical packet trace (10 response packets etc.). So I concur with you, I don't think PPPoE itself is the issue. At the moment, my opinion is that its the LCP/PPP authentication dialogue between client and server that is different between the Netgear firmware and the Draytek / WinXP initiated dial.

Quote from: oglesbyj on Jun 26, 2009, 21:04:50
...
p.p.s this is my first post on idnetters!

And a useful one at that! Thanks for your post and efforts mate, interesting to see the firmware "can" work even if it fails after a reboot. I wonder if the firmware files from draytek.com and draytek.co.uk are any different? Hopefully I will hear from Draytek soon with some updates, especially since Stu above has sent some of his pcaps over to Draytek as well. They should now be armed with the info they need to be able to compare a successful and failing LCP communication, and hopefully make a firmware mod to work around any issue.

Presumably if they can get so far with the 2820, updates will follow for Draytek's other ADSL2+ compatible products (2800, 100/120 etc). Here's hoping. Like you, I can't live without the Draytek's VPN and other facilities so at the moment I have a lashup where a netgear is acting as a modem connecting to the 2820's WAN2 port. It works, but it's not pretty

Seb

D-Dan · Jul 02, 2009, 21:03:53

I consider this a problem inasmuch as it's 2 steps down on bRAS:

Test1 comprises of Best Effort Test: -provides background information.
Your DSL connection rate: 6652 kbps(DOWN-STREAM), 957 kbps(UP-STREAM)
IP profile for your line is - 5500 kbps
Actual IP throughput achieved during the test was - 5003 kbps

and about 1.2 mbs slower on throughput. SNR at 6 so it isn't going to get any better.

I'm watching the guy who reverted to ADSLMax very closely, right now.

Steve

Sebby · Jul 02, 2009, 21:33:03

It seems like ADSL2+ needs a really good, quiet line to work well, otherwise it's just too affected by its use of more frequencies.

D-Dan · Jul 02, 2009, 22:19:31

Well -I'm really not impressed that the "Upgrade" seems more like a "Downgrade". BT have a lot to answer for. What's worse, is that their infrastructure will be required for implementing the Digital Britain recommendations, when they can't manage what they have now.

Privatisation - don't you just love it?

Steve

zappaDPJ · Jul 03, 2009, 02:16:36

Quote from: D-Dan on Jul 02, 2009, 21:03:53
I'm watching the guy who reverted to ADSLMax very closely, right now.

Steve

Same here.

Sebby · Jul 03, 2009, 13:06:43

Quote from: D-Dan on Jul 02, 2009, 22:19:31
Well -I'm really not impressed that the "Upgrade" seems more like a "Downgrade". BT have a lot to answer for. What's worse, is that their infrastructure will be required for implementing the Digital Britain recommendations, when they can't manage what they have now.

Privatisation - don't you just love it?

Steve

The biggest problem with ADSL2+ is that is uses more frequencies, so if you have a bad or even average line, things can potentially be worse.

jameshurrell · Jul 04, 2009, 18:50:08

I have been on WBC for a few weeks now, no real issues, but have just got around to doing a speedtest. I believe my profile is low for my sync.. but not sure. The speedtester is busy, but one I did yesterday indicates that I have a profile of 12000 for a sync of 15963... does this sound right?

I rebooted the router this morning because I had to move it, and prior to the move it had been synced at around 14600 - is 12000 normal for that sync?

D-Dan · Jul 04, 2009, 18:56:41

I've made my mind up and I'm going back to Max.

Steve

Sebby · Jul 05, 2009, 01:15:38

Quote from: jameshurrell on Jul 04, 2009, 18:50:08
I have been on WBC for a few weeks now, no real issues, but have just got around to doing a speedtest. I believe my profile is low for my sync.. but not sure. The speedtester is busy, but one I did yesterday indicates that I have a profile of 12000 for a sync of 15963... does this sound right?

I rebooted the router this morning because I had to move it, and prior to the move it had been synced at around 14600 - is 12000 normal for that sync?

No, it should be 14,000k, which suggestions there has been some instability, and the profile is disrupted as a result. If your sync remains steady for a few days, the profile will change by itself.

Simon_idnet · Aug 19, 2009, 16:59:44

Quote from: sebt on Jun 27, 2009, 13:14:24
Thanks for sending the packets over Stu. I've had PPPoE working from the Netgear, but only when the Netgear is initiating the dial/authenticating. PPPoE initiated from XP over either the Netgear or Draytek fails with identical packet trace (10 response packets etc.). So I concur with you, I don't think PPPoE itself is the issue. At the moment, my opinion is that its the LCP/PPP authentication dialogue between client and server that is different between the Netgear firmware and the Draytek / WinXP initiated dial.

And a useful one at that! Thanks for your post and efforts mate, interesting to see the firmware "can" work even if it fails after a reboot. I wonder if the firmware files from draytek.com and draytek.co.uk are any different? Hopefully I will hear from Draytek soon with some updates, especially since Stu above has sent some of his pcaps over to Draytek as well. They should now be armed with the info they need to be able to compare a successful and failing LCP communication, and hopefully make a firmware mod to work around any issue.

Presumably if they can get so far with the 2820, updates will follow for Draytek's other ADSL2+ compatible products (2800, 100/120 etc). Here's hoping. Like you, I can't live without the Draytek's VPN and other facilities so at the moment I have a lashup where a netgear is acting as a modem connecting to the 2820's WAN2 port. It works, but it's not pretty

Seb

Hi Seb.

I understand that your Draytek is now online which is good to hear.
We have been working hard on this problem. It appears that Drayteks are rather agressive in their time-outs for authentication.
So, we've been working at re-routing the path that the BT RADIUS traffic takes in order to make it as short as possible. We've
even moved the RADIUS server to different hardware to try to get it as close (logically) as possible to the BT router. It seems
that one or more of these steps is starting to help the situation.

Thanks go to Alex at Draytek for their assistance.

Simon

Rik · Aug 19, 2009, 17:05:47

Nice to hear solutions are beginning to be found, Simon. Now about my connection this afternoon...

Simon_idnet · Aug 19, 2009, 17:13:37

Quote from: Rik on Aug 19, 2009, 17:05:47
Nice to hear solutions are beginning to be found, Simon. Now about my connection this afternoon...

The Milton Keynes BRAS has been very flaky this afternoon. BT say it is affecting around 600 customers. They say they thought they had fixed it but then saw it drop again...

That BRAS is one of the major nodes in the country serving areas such as MK, Oxford and as far out as us here in Hitchin.
S

Rik · Aug 19, 2009, 17:15:23

It's nice to be in good company, Simon. My PPP sessions are going up and down like a fiddler's elbow.

sebt · Aug 20, 2009, 15:46:11

Quote from: Simon_idnet on Aug 19, 2009, 16:59:44
Hi Seb.

I understand that your Draytek is now online which is good to hear.
We have been working hard on this problem. It appears that Drayteks are rather agressive in their time-outs for authentication.
So, we've been working at re-routing the path that the BT RADIUS traffic takes in order to make it as short as possible. We've
even moved the RADIUS server to different hardware to try to get it as close (logically) as possible to the BT router. It seems
that one or more of these steps is starting to help the situation.

Thanks go to Alex at Draytek for their assistance.

Simon

Hi Simon,

Yes, this is great news indeed! I can confirm that having restarted the Draytek a few times in the last day or two it's connecting effortlessly and instantly each time.

I noticed also that my downstream sync speed from the Draytek is much better than it ever was from the Netgear. The (v3) DG834 would top out at 13840 down and ~1000 up, whereas the Draytek has already synced at 16283 (after just 1 reboot). In the past, although never able to authenticate, I saw downstream syncs of 18000 after several reboots; since the profile has been stable/stuck at 13840/11000 for some time on the netgear, it's encouraging to see the speeds climbing already on the Vigor (with a little nudge from Brian in the BT direction!!). This does raise the interesting question of why it syncs at higher speeds than the Netgear. I can only assume that the Draytek modem chipset is more sensitive in its reception and transmission of signal. It's quite possible that the later DG834 models have improved in this area though.

So we know that the Vigor 2820 series works with WBC and with IDnet, a result I've been hanging out for since May. If you can feed back all the various changes you're aware of with Alex, perhaps he can escalate a small change to the Vigor firmware codebase on the ADSL2 side just to relax the authentication timeout a little. All together, this should make WBC a Draytek-friendly zone. Are you aware that the changes made have also fixed the issues for Vigor 1xx modems and 2800 routers connecting?

Thanks to all concerned for their efforts. I'm very grateful that it's working, not just for me, but for the colleagues with IDnet on Draytek VPNs eager to migrate up to WBC and other IDnetters who like their feature-rich Drayteks.

Special thanks to Brian for his efforts and for bearing with me on some long phone calls!

Seb

Rik · Aug 20, 2009, 15:48:33

Collaboration really can produce results, Seb. Kudos to everyone involved.

Simon_idnet · Aug 20, 2009, 15:55:57

Hi Seb

The only "positives" we've seen so far have been for 2820's so it's a bit early to say about other models.
Cheers
Simon